Dual 1.8Ghz PowerMac G5 performance results are now reported...

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Nov 21, 2003.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
  2. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    UCLA
    #2
    It's interesting how they show the Alienware machine with the Athlon 64 processor as slower than even the baseline single processor Pentium 4 system. It looks like they want to show that 64-bit on the PC side isn't really ready or even comparable to the true 64-bit power of the G5.
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    1macker1

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Location:
    A Higher Level
    #3
    Do you really trust the outcome of the test. This is the apple site. You dont think they would show the test where the G5 got it's a** handed to it. Take the results with a grain of salt.
     
  4. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    UCLA
    #4
    I never said I really trusted the results. I just pointed out something that I thought was interesting.
     
  5. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2001
    #5
    I was surprised at first to see that for the first two test they used a 2.8GHz dual xeon set up, while in the other tests they used a 3.2GHz dual xeon set up... then I read the fine print...

    apparently that system is recommended by Avid, I would still like to see the the results with the 3.2GHz Xeons, I think they would be faster, but that is expected, doesn't that CPU use the 800MHz system bus? and it has more cache? and the other more obvious thing is that they 3.2GHz Xeons are 1.2GHz faster than the 2GHz G5.

    I also would like to see the prices of the other systems compared to the G5s, I'm to lazy to do this now, does anyone feel like going to hp.com, dell.com and alienware.com and check out the systems?

    THANK YOU
    MaT

    edit: spelling
     
  6. Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Whakatane, New Zealand
    #6
    I see that they haven't posted the CTP ("Composite Theoretical Performance - measurement of a computer's processing speed in MTOPS, Millions of Theoretical Operations Per Second") on their site yet. I don't really understand what the CTP means, but I guess it'd be useful for doing comparisons.
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2003
    Location:
    Fredericton, NB Canada
    #7
    We have a 1.8 GHz G5 in our lab, and I can confirm that it does BLAST searches incredibly fast.

    When the BLAST algorithm was vectorized and compiled for the G4, many big biotech companies dumped their collections of P4s running Linux, and bought the fastest G4s they could get. Faster P4s started narrowing the gap, but the G4s were still holding their own (even my modest little 667MHz PowerBook can do BLASTs faster than most desktop PCs). The G5s leave all these systems in the dust.

    As more and more labs get their hands on G5 based systems, and bioinformatics centers get their software ported over, we're seeing a serious resurgence of PowerMacs in research. I don't think the PC side will catch up for quite some time.

    It's a good time to be a Mac-geek in the bioinformatics world.
     
  8. macrumors demi-god

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #8
    The last time I checked the price of those workstations was comparible (+/- $100 or something) to a top of the line PowerMac.


    Lethal
     

Share This Page